Why connecting with nature enriches our lives

Archive for April, 2017

This weekend, in cities around the world, people are marching in support of science and evidence-based policy making. As I write this, thousands of Australians have already taken part in the global March for Science. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are expected to demonstrate in the same way, largely in response to President Trump’s proposed budget cuts to science and his scepticism about the causes and consequences of climate change.

The well-being of Australians is being jeopardised by much the same governmental devaluing of science and climate change “denialism”. Emperor Economics and his sidekicks, Prince Political Power Protection and Duke Dogmatic Ideology, are reigning supreme.

Protests against these threats to informed rationality are to be welcomed but it is staggering to think that such activity is necessary after 250 years of the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

How are Trump and countless others of influence and power able to get away with making policies and decisions based on assumptions, opinions, gut-feelings and ideological prejudices rather than scientific (or factual) evidence?

Is it because too few of their constituents have the scientific literacy to question and challenge them? If the growing concern about school students’ declining performance and participation in science is anything to go by, this could be the case.

But let’s be realistic in our expectations. The formal study of science, especially at more advanced levels, is not for everyone. Nor is such study necessary in order to be scientifically literate in a very useful and powerful way. We can all “do” science.

This little girl (Zoe) is “doing” science.

She is seeking to understand her world by investigating, observing and testing it against what she already “knows” or believes. This is exactly what genuine science is about.

If she continues to do this through the formative years of childhood and adolescence, she will assemble the basic components of scientific literacy, namely:

a keen desire to investigate and learn about the physical and social world she occupies

an authentic but growing and malleable picture of that world

an understanding and appreciation of the kind of evidence (anchored to observation and objectively tested) that is needed to build that picture

Of these components, the last is the most important for navigating the sea of fake news, propaganda, dogma, spin, half-truths and lies that washes our way daily. I believe that a universal commitment to the principle of living under the guidance of sound evidence would make the world a much better place. And fostering that commitment in our children has to be a priority in their upbringing.

How far little ones like Zoe will travel on the road to scientific literacy depends on many factors, how they are nurtured in science at school being a key one. But parents (and grandparents) can also contribute significantly by –

sharing, supporting and encouraging their children’s “science” play

encouraging such play by locating their children in stimulating settings especially in the natural world

talking to their children about what they are seeing doing and discovering

encouraging observation, discussion and reflection when things of interest are encountered in daily life.

using questions to bring out the scientist in their children, such as

What is it doing? How does it feel? How are they alike? How are they different? What if…? How could we…? Why do you think…? Can you explain that?

It is worth noting that research from the USA suggests that most children form an opinion about science by the time they are seven years old. This is surely reason enough to expose children from a very early age to the scientific playgrounds to be found everywhere in the out-of-doors.

These are views of the greenspace I see from one of the balconies of my new apartment.

Having these views was a big reason for choosing the apartment in the first place. Even so, I feel very fortunate and privileged to have such greenery to look at every day.

Not all residents of medium density developments in our cities have such amenities to enjoy. After all, lawns and gardens take up space where apartments can be built. Where’s the financial sense in foregoing profits in order to provide a view of a bit of greenery? Anyway, isn’t it the case that people don’t miss what they didn’t have to begin with. Besides, a few token plants and trees around the place will keep everyone happy.

While such cynical views may not be expressed openly, they might as well be. It is a rare apartment development these days that doesn’t occupy the entire block of land. And government regulators are doing little to curb the practice or to reserve land in areas of increasingly high population density for parks and gardens.

Evidence from the many studies of the relationship between green space and human health and well-being clearly shows how short-sighted, irresponsible and potentially damaging these policies and attitudes are.

Consider these research findings, for example:

People are happier and have lower mental distress when living in urban areas with more green space, especially biodiversity rich spaces.

Meeting one’s neighbour in a local park can help to build friendship and foster a sense of commonality, and can lay the groundwork for further socialising.

Green space in urban areas is associated with a long-term reduction in mortality (Proximity to green space helps people live longer).

People living close to (within 300 metres of) green space report better health, require fewer medications and are troubled less by anxiety and depression.

Green space can have beneficial therapeutic benefits for people suffering from mental illnesses and even reduce the risk of schizophrenia.

Access to green space can help to counter some of the risks to health associated with low socio-economic circumstances especially inadequate physical activity.

While everyone stands to benefit from having green space nearby, it is likely that children and disadvantaged people have most to gain.

I often wonder what it will take to awaken Australians and people elsewhere to the power for good that resides in urban nature (and nature in all its forms). I am not sure that writing about it achieves much, apart from warming the hearts of the converted. And I am not convinced that TV nature documentaries – even of the quality of Planet Earth II – have more than a transient impact on most people.

Certainly, there are signs of an awakening of sorts – most notably the actions being stirred by Richard Louv’s warnings about the epidemic of “nature deficit disorder” spreading through children of the First World. But even this awakening is struggling to find its way into the consciousness of society’s opinion shapers and policy makers. The movers and shakers are simply not being moved and shaken by a “nature narrative”. Even the most monumentally impacting of nature’s current narratives, climate change, is still being denied by some and heard without real understanding by many.

One major impediment, I think, is that nature has ceased to be personal for many citizens of Western societies. When something is personal it reaches beyond our minds to the depths of our emotions and values. When something is personal it is part of us, part of our sense of meaning and identity. We appropriate it to ourselves; we revel in it; we nurture it; we defend it. When it flourishes, we flourish; when it hurts we hurt.

A personal relationship is grounded in intimate experience – an “I-thou” rather than an “I-it” form of engagement. Our relationship with nature is no different – as scientific as well as anecdotal evidence clearly tells us.

What, then, has to be done to help people discover nature in a personally meaningful and significant way? Perhaps the answer can be found by encouraging people like you (my valued readers) to tell how they (and you) formed a personal relationship with nature. There is a power in personal stories. Perhaps the way forward is to tap that power on behalf of ourselves and nature.